In re: Satya Ranjan Nandi v. . — 1983 DIGILAW 60 (CAL)

ORDER 1. Satya Ranjan Nandi and eight-two other persons, the petitioners in this application, claim to be the owners of rickshaws kept or garag within the South Dum Dum Municipality. The petitioners further claimed to be registered as such owners by the said Municipality and allege that they have been issued licences in respect of their rickshaws by the Municipality. 2. On or about the 22nd March 1982, the Government of West Bengal issued a Notification as follows:- "It is again notified for information of all concerned that in respect of movement of rickshaws on city roads, the following decisions have been taken to ease traffic congestion:- (i) Unlicensed rickshaws will not be allowed to ply in the city of Calcutta. (ii) Licensed rickshaws will not be allowed to ply or remain standing on the following roads on all hours of the day:- (a) The, entire stretch from the Shyambazar 5 point crossing to Lenin Sarani along Bhupen Bose Avenue, Jatindra Mohan Avenue and Chittaranjan Avenue. (b) The entire stretch of Rabindra Sarani. (c) The entire stretch of Bidhan Sarani. Enforcement of the decisions has commenced with effect from the 22nd March, 1982." 3. The petitioners allege that since the issue of the said Notification there has been a concerted drive by the Police to prevent plying of rickshaws in Calcutta and rickshaws have been and are being seized and destroyed with out being produced before Magistrate and without any lawful order of confiscation or destruction. 4. The petitioners contend that as they held valid licences granted by the Municipality, the police Authorities have no power or authority to seize, confiscate or destroy the rickshaws and that seizure or destruction of their rickshaws as aforesaid have been arbitrary and illegal. The said Notification to the extent it restricts the movements of rickshaws in the City roads, it is contended, violates the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 5. The petitioners contend that the said Notification of the Government of West Bengal and the seizure and destruction of the rickshaws of the petitioners are illegal, without authority and jurisdiction. On the strength of the licenses issued by the said municipality the petitioners claim to be entitled to ply their rickshaws in the usual course of business in the area specified under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 6. On the strength of the licenses issued by the said municipality the petitioners claim to be entitled to ply their rickshaws in the usual course of business in the area specified under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 6. In this application moved on the 6th May, 1982 against the State of West Bengal; Chairman, South Dum Dum Municipality; the Commissioner or Police, Calcutta; The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Calcutta. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) Calcutta. The Officer-in-Charge, Cossipore Police Station, Calcutta and the Officer-in-Charge, Chitpur Police Station, Calcutta. The petitioner is pray for issue of appropriate writ, directing the respondents to forbear from seizing the rickshaws of the petitioners and proceeding further pursuant thereto. Other ancilliary reliefs have also been prayed for. 7. On the 6th May, 1982, a Civil Order was passed directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to inspect and identify their seized rickshaws. On the 22nd June, 1982, there was a further order restraining the respondents from interfering with the plying of the rickshaws of the petitioner upto the Marhatta Ditch of Calcutta. 8. At the instance of the parties this application was heard on merits without any Rule nisi being issued. Shibnath Roy, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Calcutta has affirmed an affidavit on the 3rd August 1982 which has been filed in opposition to this petition on behalf of the Police Authorities impleaded as respondents as also the State of West Bengal. It is, inter alia, alleged in this affidavit that the licences issued by the said Municipality to the petitioners in respect of the rickshaws were under S. 173 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and not under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. It is alleged that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) is the licensing authority for rickshaws under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 and rickshaws can be plied within the town and the suburbs of Calcutta only under such licences and not under the licenses issued by the said Municipality. It is contended that a rickshaw plying in Calcutta without a licence issued under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 can be seized as an unlicensed rickshaw. The seizure of the rickshaws, it is contended, have been legal. It is alleged that tile seized rickshaws have not been destroyed by the Police. 9. It is contended that a rickshaw plying in Calcutta without a licence issued under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 can be seized as an unlicensed rickshaw. The seizure of the rickshaws, it is contended, have been legal. It is alleged that tile seized rickshaws have not been destroyed by the Police. 9. Gopal Krishna Banerji, the Vice Chairman of the South Dum Dum Municipality, has affirmed an affidavit on the 14th July 1982 which has also been filed in opposition to the petition. It is, inter alia, alleged in this affidavit that licences issued to the petitioners by the, said Municipality under S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 permitted the petitioners to ply their rickshaws within the said Municipality and not outside. It is contended that the said Municipality has no power or right to invoke the provisions of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. The owners' licenses issued to the petitioners copies of which have been annexed to the petition are alleged to be nothing but receipts for Rs. 1/- charged by the said Municipality against each licence. 10. It is contended that under the Bengal Municipality Act, 1932 a Municipality is prohibited from levying more than one tax in respect of any carriage for the same period and, therefore the Municipality was not empowered to charge any other fee or tax except that permitted under the said Act. 11. Two supplementary affidavits affirmed by the petitioner no. 46 respectively all the 10th May and the 28th June, 1982 have been filed with leave. In the affidavit affirmed on the 10th May 1982, a list of rickshaws seized with the names of their owners and licence numbers have been annexed. In the affidavit affirmed on the 28th June, 1982, the petitioners have annexed copies of several Notifications issued by the Government of West Bengal, licences issued by the Municipality and copies of endorsements in the tin parties also issued by the Municipality. 12. The petitioner no.46 has also affirmed two affidavits respectively on the 20th July and the 8th November, 1982 which have been filed in reply. 13. At the hearing the learned Advocates for the respondents reiterated the contentions in the affidavits filed on their behalf, it is urged that no licence had been issued by the Municipality to the petitioners under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 13. At the hearing the learned Advocates for the respondents reiterated the contentions in the affidavits filed on their behalf, it is urged that no licence had been issued by the Municipality to the petitioners under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. There was only one type of licence which could have been and were issued by the Municipality and that was under S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and the numbers in the documents were common. 14. Learned Advocates further submitted that the matter was covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Parameswar Choudhury & other vs. State of West Bengal & other, 86 CWN 628. 15. The said judgment it was submitted has been reaffirmed on a revision. In that case a number of rickshaw pullers claimed that they had been issued licences be the South Dum Dum Municipality under S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. They alleged further that the area appertaining to the South Dum Dum Municipality had been included in Calcutta as defined in S.4(2) of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. The contentions raised by the said rickshaw pullers in their application under Article 226 of the Constitution were that they were entitled to ply their rickshaws within the City of Calcutta as their rickshaws should be deemed to have been registered under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 or alternatively, they had a right to be registered under the said Act and that their demands for being so registered had been wrongly refused by the registering authority. 16. A Division Bench of this Court held on such facts that the petitioners failed to establish that any Notifications published under S. 2(b) of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 whereby the area under the said Act. The petitioners also failed to establish that they had been registered by the Municipal Authorities under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. In fact, the case of the petitioners was that the only licences issued to them were under S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. 17. On a review before the same Bench being No. Rev. T. 970A of 1083 the petitioners produced a copy of the Notification under S. 2(b) of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. In fact, the case of the petitioners was that the only licences issued to them were under S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. 17. On a review before the same Bench being No. Rev. T. 970A of 1083 the petitioners produced a copy of the Notification under S. 2(b) of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. It was held by the Court that, even then, the petitioners could not establish that they had applied for or obtained licences under the Calcutta Hackney, Carriage Act, 1919 and, therefore, their case for a review failed. 18. Learned Advocates for the petitioners contended to the contrary. They submitted that the relevant sections of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 and the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. By-laws and Rules framed and the Notification issued thereunder as also the several licences and the tin plates issued by the said Municipality were not produced nor considered in Parameswar Choudhury (supra) and that the facts and record in the instant case were entirely different from those in the earlier decision. To appreciate the issues involved, the relevant statutory provisions have to be considered in some detail. I first refer to the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 the following sections of which are relevant:- Section 173: "Grant of licence on payment of Tax – (1) On receiving the amount of the tax due the Commissioners or some person authorised by them in that behalf, shall give to the person paying, the same a licence for the several carriages, horse and other animals for the period in respect of which the amount is received. (2) Such licence shall be for the current half-year and no longer." Section 175: "Carriages, etc. not to be kept without a licence:- No person shall keep, or be in possession of any carriage, horse or other animal without the licence required under this Act. (2) Such licence shall be for the current half-year and no longer." Section 175: "Carriages, etc. not to be kept without a licence:- No person shall keep, or be in possession of any carriage, horse or other animal without the licence required under this Act. Provided that no carriage which has not been brought into use or which is so damaged as in the opinion of the Commissioners to he unfit for use shall he liable to the tax." Section 177: "Preparation of list of persons licensed:- The Commissioner shall, from time to time cause to be prepared and entered in a book to be kept by the them and to be open to the inspection of any person interested therein a list of the persons to whom during, the then current half-year a licence has been given, and of the carriages, horses and other animals in respect of which they have paid the tax." Section 180: "Prohibition double tax:- Nothing in Ss. 168 to 179 shall be deemed to authorise the levy of more than one tax for the same period in respect of any carriage, horse or other animal which is used in the ordinary course of business in more than one municipality. In such cases the tax shall be levied by the Commissioners of the municipality within the jurisdiction of which the carriage, horse or other animal is kept." Section 461 "Power to Commissioners to cancel licence issued to the owner or driver of any hackney carriage:- The Commissioners may cancel any licence issued to any owner or driver of any hackney carriage under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act 1 of 1919) as extended to any area within a municipality, if such owner or driver does not at such times as may from time to time be fixed by the Commissioners keep available for hire to the public, and ply for hire when required, the hackney carriage and horses in respect of which the licence has been granted under that Act; and on cancellation of such licence the Commissioners may require such owner or driver, or any other persons in whose possession the driver's ticket or licence may be, to surrender the same to them forthwith" 19. The relevant provisions of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 may next be considered and are as follows :- Section: 1(3): "It shall apply in the first instance only to Calcutta. Explanation: In this proviso (1) 'Calcutta' means the town of Calcutta as defined in S. 3 of the 'Calcutta Police Act, 1866, together with the suburbs of Calcutta as defined by notification under S. 1 of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866; and (2) 'streets' and 'public places' have the same meanings as in the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 and the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866." Section 2 : "The State Government may, by notification (a) extend the Act, or any portion thereof, to any other town or local area; or (b) exclude from, or include in, Calcutta, or any other town or local area to which this Act is extended under clause (a), any local area in the vicinity of the same and defined in the notification. Provided that no notification under this section shall be published in respect of any area included in a Military Cantonment without the previous sanction of the Central Government; Provided also that, before finally publishing any Notification under this Section, the State Government shall publish a draft of the same in such manner as (it) may think fit, and any rate-payer or inhabitant of the area affected by such draft may, if he objects to the draft submit objection in writing to the State Government within six weeks from its publication and the State Government shall take such objection into consideration. Section 4: "In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context. (2) 'Calcutta' means subject to the provisions of the proviso to sub-s. (3) of S. 1 and subject to the exclusion of any local area by notification under clause (b) of S. 2, the area described in Schedule 1 to the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899.” Section 5: "Every hackney-carriage in Calcutta shall be annually registered by a Registering Officer, on such date as the Commissioner of Police may direct”. Section 9: “(1) The Registering Officer shall, at the time of registration, upon payment of such fee as may be fixed by by-law made under clause (f) of S. 71, deliver a licence, duly signed by him, to the owner of every hackney-carriage. Section 9: “(1) The Registering Officer shall, at the time of registration, upon payment of such fee as may be fixed by by-law made under clause (f) of S. 71, deliver a licence, duly signed by him, to the owner of every hackney-carriage. (2) Such licence shall, if not cancelled or suspended, continue in force for one year from the first day of the month in which the carriage is registered. Section 10; "The following, particulars shall be entered in the register, and shall be specified in the licence to be given to the owner :- (a) the class and the number assigned to the carriage in the register; (b) the name and residence of the owner, the description of the carriage, and the place where such carriage is to be kept; (c) the number and description of horses to be employed in drawing such carriages; (d) the number of passengers the carriage is licenced to carry; (e) the date on which the liccnce was granted; and (f) Such other particulars as may be prescribed by by-law made under Section 71.” Section 17: “Upon the registration of any hackney-carriage, Registering Officer shall cause to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the outside of such carriage a plate bearing the class and the number of such carriage in the register and the number of passenger which it is licenced to carry.” Section 32: “(1) No person shall act as a driver of a hackney-carriage without a licence granted by the Registering Officer.” Section 37: “(1) Every licence granted under S. 32, sub-s. (1) shall contain- (a) the number of the licence ; (b) the name, father's name, place of above and age of the person to whom such licence is granted; (c) the date on which the licence was granted; and (d) a summary of the more important statutory provisions and by-laws affecting drivers of hackney carriages; and shall bear the signature of the Registering Officer. (2) Every licence granted under S. 32, sub-s. (1) shall, if not cancelled or suspended continue in force for one year from the first day of the month in which it is granted and shall thereafter be renewed, provided that the Registering officer is satisfied that the driver continues to fulfil the conditions prescribed by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (2) of that section. (3) For every such licence and for every renewal thereof there shall be paid a fee of two rupees.” Section 70: “All the provisions contained in this Act, relating to palanquins, and the hirers, owners and bearers thereof shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis, and so far as the same may reasonably be applied, to all rickshaws plying for hire in any town or place in which this Act is in force, and to the hirers, owners and bearers of such rickshaws; Provided further that in any area included in Calcutta under clause (b) of S. 2, the function of the Registering Officer shall be performed by an officer appointed by the Commissioners of the Municipality comprising such area and the said officer shall forward to the Deputy Commissioner of Police referred to in sub-s. (1) of S. 6 all papers relating to registration for record after they have been duly dealt with.” Section 70A: “Special Provision of unlicensed rickshaws. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Act, if any, rickshaw, other than a cycle-rickshaw, is used as such without having a license under this Act, the owner of such rickshaws shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees but subject to a minimum of fifty rupees and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. Any police officer or any person duly authorised by the Commissioner of Police in that behalf may seize such rickshaw and produce the same before the Magistrate and the Magistrate may, in addition to the imposition of fine, order confiscation of the rickshaw.” Section 71: “(1) The State Government may make by-lays generally for carrying out the provisions and intentions of this Act.” Section 84: “(1) Whenever this Act is extended to any other town or local area outside Calcutta under clause (a) of S. 2 the State Government may by notification appoint persons, or local authorities to exercise and perform in such town or area the same powers and duties as are conferred or imposed by this Act on the Corporation of Calcutta and the Commissioner of Police. (2) In each town or local area to which this Act may be extended, for the word "Calcutta" in Ss. 5, 32, 60 and 61 shall be read the name of such town or area. (2) In each town or local area to which this Act may be extended, for the word "Calcutta" in Ss. 5, 32, 60 and 61 shall be read the name of such town or area. Section 85: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a hackney-carriage registered under this Act in any town or local area outside Calcutta may ply for hire in any place outside Calcutta within a radius of six miles from such town or local area. (2) All the provisions of this Act shall be applicable to the case of a hackney carriage plying within such radius so far as the same may be applicable in each case.” 20. The relevant by-laws promulgated under S. 71(1) of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 are as follows :- “By-law 38 :-The following particulars shall be entered in the registers and licences under this Act- (6) Rickshaws Owner's licence : 1. The number assigned to the rickshaw in the register. 2. The-name, father's name and residence of the owner, the description of the rickshaw and the place where the rickshaw is kept. 3. The number of passengers the rickshaw is licensed to carry. 4. The date on which the licence was granted. 5. Date of expiry of licence. 6. That the rickshaw shall ply for hire at any of the public stands in the town and suburbs of Calcutta not at any other place. 7. Signature of the Registering Officer.” 21. By the following notification, the South Dum Dum Municipality was included in Calcutta for the purposes of Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. Notification No. 4073 P1, dated the 10th August, 1935 (published “Calcutta Gazette” of 1935 Pt. I p. 1446). “In exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of S. 2 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act I of 1919), the Governor in Council is pleased to include in Calcutta for the purposes of the said Act the following Municipalities, which are situated in the vicinity of Calcutta....................South Dum Dum. 22 By the following notification, the Commissioners of the South Dum Dum Municipality were appointed to exercise and perform in the said Municipality the powers and duties conferred or imposed by the Act Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 on the Corporation of Calcutta and the Commissioner of Police. 22 By the following notification, the Commissioners of the South Dum Dum Municipality were appointed to exercise and perform in the said Municipality the powers and duties conferred or imposed by the Act Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 on the Corporation of Calcutta and the Commissioner of Police. Notification No. 3553 M., dated the 11th November 1938 (published in the "Calcutta Gazette" of 1938, pt I,p. 2485). “In exercise of the power conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 84 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act I of 1919) the Governor is pleased to appoint the Commissioner of the Dum Dum Municipality in the district of the 24-Parganas to exercise and perform in the said Municipality the same powers and duties as are conferred or imposed by the said Act on the Corporation of Calcutta and the Commissioner of Police respectively” 23. In the instant case, the following have admittedly been issued by the Municipality to tile petitioners in respect of their rickshaws :-(a) Licenses for carriages expressly stated to be issued under S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. This license empowers the holder to keep the Municipality a rickshaw against payment of a fee recorded in the license. (b) A document described as a rickshaw owner's licence. This document bears a serial number and the signatures of Chairman/Vice-Chairman, the License Inspector and the Cashier of the Municipality and contain the following particulars :- (i) number assigned to the rickshaw and the registration; (ii) name of the owner ; (iii) number of passengers the rickshaw licensed to carry; (iv) date on which the license was granted; (v) dated of expiry of the license; (vi) amount of fee paid. (e) A document described as the rickshaw driver's license signed by the Vice-Chairman/ License Inspector and the Cashier of the Municipality and a photograph of the holder is attached to this document and the same contains the following particulars :- (i) number of license ; (ii) name of the driver: (iii) age; (iv) father's name; (v) residence; (vi) date on which the license was granted; (vii) number of rickshaws allowed to draw; (viii) date of expiry of the license; (ix) amount of fee paid. (d) Tin plates which contained the following endorsements- (i) Rickshaw; (ii) 1982-83; (iii) Registration number; (iv) Carry two persons. 24. (d) Tin plates which contained the following endorsements- (i) Rickshaw; (ii) 1982-83; (iii) Registration number; (iv) Carry two persons. 24. At the hearing to registers maintained by the Municipality in respect of rickshaws were also produced. The pages of the registers were in the same printed form with the caption "under S. 168 and 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act", but in one register it was written by hand "under S. 173" in the other it was written "rickshaw owners". 25. Under the said Notification dated the 10th August, 1935 the area under the South Dum Dum Municipality was included in Calcutta for the purpose of Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act and by the subsequent Notification dated the 11th November, 1938, the Commissioners of the Municipality were appointed to exercise and perform the powers and duties conferred or imposed by the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 on the Corporation of Calcutta and the Commissioner of Police. 26 It is to be decided whether pursuant to the aforesaid the Municipal Authorities in the instant case have issued licences under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 to the petitioners. The ease of the respondents is that the documents issued by the Municipality which are described as "rickshaw owner's licence" are nothing more than a receipt for the price paid by the rickshaw owners for the tin plates supplied by the Municipality for being affixed on the rickshaws. The said document, it is contended, do not expressly record that they are licences issued under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 27. In view of the relevant statutes, by-laws framed thereunder and the Notification issued thereunder from time to time noted and considered hereinbefore, the above contentions of the respondents as to the nature of the document involved cannot be accepted. 28. The Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 does not authorise the Municipality to issue tin plates Under S. 17 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 it is duty of the Registering, Officer to cause to be affixed on the outside of a carriage a plate bearing the class and the number of such carriage in the register and the number of passenger which it licences to carry. The tin plates in the instant case issued by the Municipality as noted earlier contain the particulars required under the said S. 17 of the Calcutta Hackney Act, 1919. 29. The tin plates in the instant case issued by the Municipality as noted earlier contain the particulars required under the said S. 17 of the Calcutta Hackney Act, 1919. 29. The document issued by the Municipality described as a rickshaw owner's licence is ex facie not a mere receipt. This document contains all the particulars as required under S. 33 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 as also the particulars required under By-law 38 promulgated under the said Act in respect of a licence issued under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 30. The Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 prohibits the Municipal Authorities to levy more than one tax for the same period in respect of any carriage. Therefore, the fee collected by the Municipal Authorities as recorded in the rickshaw owner's licence can have sanction only from the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 31. It is also to be noted that under S. 32 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 the driver of a carriage is also required to have a licence, The Municipality has also been issuing such licences to the drivers of the rickshaws. 32. There is no reason for the Municipality to maintain two registers to satisfy the requirements of S. 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act. The other register with the caption ‘rickshaw owners’ must be held to have been maintained under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. 33. For the reasons as aforesaid I hold that at the relevant time the Municipal Authorities had power and jurisdiction to issue licences under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 and that they issued licences in conformity with the requirement of the said Act. The fact that the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 has not been mentioned in the document, in my view is of little relevance. Law is settled that even where a wrong statutory provision is recited, an action otherwise authorised does not become ultra vires and that when an authority passes an order which is within its competence the same cannot fail if it could be shown to be within its power under any other statutory provision. The act of a public servant must be ascribed to an actual existing authority under which it would have validity rather than to one under which it would be void. The act of a public servant must be ascribed to an actual existing authority under which it would have validity rather than to one under which it would be void. Presumption is that the act of a statutory authority is valid and lawful and not ultra vires and without jurisdiction. See Radheswamy v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1979 SC 107 : Afzal v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1964 SC 264 : and P. Balaketaiah v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1958 SC 232 . 3. It has also been laid down by the Supreme Court that where all the conditions required are present, the mere fact that they are not strictly in the form prescribed, will not invalidate the section on the ground of non-compliance with the statute. See K. Kamraja v. Junju Thevar, reported in AIR 1958 SC 687 . 35. The decision in Parmeshwar Chowdhury (supra) cannot stand in the way of the petitioners in the instant case. The relevant statutory provisions were not considered in that case. The Court also had no occasion to consider all the licences and the tin plates issued by the Municipality. Only at the review, the notification authorising the Municipality to issue licences under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 was brought to the notice of the Court but the Court was not satisfied that any application had been made by the petitioners for licence under the said Act. 36. At the hearing, learned Advocates for the respondents brought to my notice two notifications issued by the Government which were published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 20th August 1982. The said notifications are as follows :- "No. 9725-WT-18th August, 1982-In exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of S. 2 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act 1 of 1919 the Governor is pleased hereby to rescind paragraph 1 of notification No. 4073-P I dated the 10th August, 1935, including nine municipalities mentioned therein in Calcutta for the purposes of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. No. 9526-WT-18th August, 1982-In exercise of the power conferred by clause (a) of S. 2 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act 1 of 1919) the Governor is pleased hereby to rescind notification No. 2295-M dated 16th July 1938 extending to the Dum Dum Municipality, in the district of 24-Parganas all the provisions of the said Act except sub-s. (1) of S. 6.” 37. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the said Notification issued during the pendency of this application could not affect the petitioners right as on the date when the proceedings were initiated. It was further contended that before an area could be withdrawn from Calcutta under S. 2 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, the Government was required to publish in advance a draft of such notification and invite objections from the rate payers and inhabitants of the locality. Such objections could be submitted within six weeks from the date of the publication of such notification and the Government had to consider such objections before excluding any area from Calcutta under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. It was contended that this preliminary step was not taken by the Government in issuing the said Notification. 38. The validity of the said Notifications is not in dispute in the present proceeding. Therefore, I refrain from making any comment on the same. I make it clear that it will be open to the parties to agitate their contentions in respect of the said Notifications in further proceedings, if any. 39. In the instant application, I hold that at the relevant time the Municipal Authority had power and jurisdiction to issue licences under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 and in fact such licences have been issued in favour of the petitioners. On the strength of the said licences the petitioners were entitled to ply their rickshaws within the statutory area of Calcutta and it was not open to the police authorities to contend that the rickshaws were unlicenced or to seize such rickshaws on the ground that the same were unlicensed. 40. I am not expressing any opinion on the restriction imposed by the authorities under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 for plying licensed rickshaws within Calcutta. 40. I am not expressing any opinion on the restriction imposed by the authorities under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 for plying licensed rickshaws within Calcutta. I take judicial notice of the fact that there is heavy congestion of traffic in the city and unregulated plying of slow moving vehicles like rickshaws in the street of Calcutta will not ensure to public benefit. But, at the same time the Police Authorities cannot proceed to treat the rickshaw of the petitioners as unlicensed and take penal proceedings against the petitioners on that ground. 41. I dispose of this application by directing the respondents not to consider the rickshaws of the petitioners as unlicensed rickshaws within the meaning of Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act to the extent that the petitioners held valid licences issued by the South Dum Dum Municipality. Where rickshaws with such licences have been seized on the ground that the same are unlicensed, they should be released. To the extent as aforesaid the petitioners succeed in this application. 42. On an oral application made on behalf of the State of West Bengal operation of the order only in respect of plying of rickshaws at Calcutta beyond Marhatta Ditch is stayed for two weeks. The interim order, already granted, will continue. 43. This order will also govern the other application, that is, In re. Umarani Kundu v. State of West Bengal & ors. and both the applications are disposed of on above terms. Re : C.R. 3042 (W) of 1982 44. The order passed In re; Satya Ranjan Nandi & ors. will govern this case also and the above Rule is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 45. On the undertaking to apply for a certified copy of this order, let a plain copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the parties. Application disposed of with direction.